Anaheim Council Must Go Even Further : * Its Attention to Possible Conflict of Interest Is Laudable, but It Should Focus on Itself

The politics in Anaheim continue to boggle the mind, but one thing is clear: Much more attention must be paid to making sure that members of the City Council and city commissions do not have a personal interest in the things they are asked to vote upon.

Last week, the City Council made quite a show of removing Planning Commission Chairman Glenn Hellyer from his post for a “perceived” conflict of interest. By a 3-2 vote, the council agreed that while it found no outright conflict in Hellyer’s $20,000 investment in a local restaurant and his role as a leasing agent for the relocation of a bar, there was a “perception” that his civic and private duties were tied too closely. Hellyer denied impropriety.

Whatever the merits of an individual case, the council’s attention to such perceptions was a welcome sign that it is becoming more finely attuned to the ethics of conflicts of interest. Even better would be for the council to focus on itself.

Earlier this year, for example, council members seemed astonished to learn that their motives in accepting tickets to Disneyland on behalf of others--a longstanding tradition in City Hall--might be questioned. The issue was important because the City Council will be deciding just how much of an investment Anaheim wants to make in public improvements associated with the proposed $3-billion Disneyland expansion.

Asked for a ruling, the state Fair Political Practices Commission determined that tickets obtained for friends, family and associates would pose a conflict but made an exception for so-called “protocol” tickets for visiting dignitaries and charitable groups. Showing some discomfort with even that practice, however, the FPPC recommended that the city stop acting as a broker for free tickets, which the city agreed to do.

Then there’s the matter of campaign contributions. There are no limits on the amount of contributions that can be made to candidates for city offices. That means that--as Mayor Fred Hunter aptly put it--”someone could walk in here and just buy a council member.”

There’s little doubt that the electorate would overwhelmingly support a contribution limit. But instead of simply adopting an ordinance, the council is cluttering up the November ballot with an “advisory” measure asking voters whether to move forward with some sort of limit.

Of course it should. More must be done to ensure that, when the council or city commissioners vote, they are considering the public good--not just their own.